House of Commons Hansard #366 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was consent.

Topics

Women, Peace and Security AmbassadorPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Women, Peace and Security AmbassadorPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Women, Peace and Security AmbassadorPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Women, Peace and Security AmbassadorPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Women, Peace and Security AmbassadorPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

Women, Peace and Security AmbassadorPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Women, Peace and Security AmbassadorPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 12, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

TransportAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise today during Adjournment Proceedings to revisit an issue I raised in the House during question period on September 20, when I asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport about a letter that the Penelakut First Nation in my riding had written, expressing their anger and frustration about the establishment of anchorages in their traditional territories without their consent. The Minister of Transport responded that no relationship was more important than that with first nations, but we still have a situation on the south coast of Vancouver Island and among the Gulf Islands that is clearly not working for first nations, stakeholders and local communities.

Earlier this year, the federal government created the interim anchorages protocol and in August it announced that the protocol would be extended by one year. However, it is quite apparent that the protocol is not working very well. There is increasingly frequent freighter traffic and freighters are staying for longer periods of time, which is causing more consternation among my constituents. In September, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith and I co-hosted a round table, which a lot of stakeholders, municipal representatives and first nations attended. They were pretty well unanimous that something had to be done to fix the issue.

The impact of these freighters is quite wide-ranging. Not only are they there for longer periods of time and freighter traffic has increased, but they are also parked in a very sensitive marine environment that is home to many species of aquatic life. Some crews of the vessels have been observed power washing the decks, with the resulting dirty water going right into the ocean. There have been reports of crews fishing. I would like to know if any of them hold valid federal fishing licences. The noise from generators used to power lights and power tools at all hours of the day carries across the water. Of course, the navigation lights at night, which are required by international maritime law, are so bright that they can illuminate the houses on the nearby shore. Some people have even reported being able to read books with those bright lights.

I have also consulted with local first nations, namely, the Lyackson, Penelakut and Cowichan tribes. They have described Transport Canada's consultations with first nations as superficial and think that the tone set by the federal government does not demonstrate a sincere effort by it to resolve this outstanding issue. This is really important because first nations are not stakeholders, not in the normal sense of the word. It goes far beyond that: They are rights holders, as guaranteed under our Constitution and upheld by numerous Supreme Court rulings. These anchorages were established on their traditional and unceded territories with no consultation and no consent.

Going forward, we need to fix our transport system as a whole, looking at our railways, our ports and our shipping system. We need better oversight of the ships that are inbound to port, particularly as we now know that the government is planning to reach $75 billion worth of agricultural exports by 2025 and also wants a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic from its disastrous plan to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are also still exporting American coal from Vancouver, which is a shameful blot on efforts to combat climate change.

First nations' rights are important. The government has acknowledged that and all members of the House understand that. We need to stop using their traditional and unceded territories as a parking lot for freighters.

TransportAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Madam Speaker, our government remains committed to reconciliation with first nations and acknowledges that in the past, anchorage locations were selected for reasons of safety and security of the ship and at a time when consultations with first nations were not required as they are today.

The past practice was abandoned in the early 1990s, and since that time there has been no process for the identification and designation of new anchorages. Since then as well, Canada's population and economy have grown and the number of ships arriving at our west coast has increased. Our government recognized a need for a new framework for the selection and management of anchorages outside ports, one that would include many more considerations than in the past.

In response to the changing needs of Canadians, in 2017, we launched the national anchorages initiative as one of the many projects within our unprecedented oceans protection plan. The project when completed will deliver a new modern anchorages selection and management framework, which will respect the rights of first nations and take into account the impacts of an anchorage on the surrounding communities and the environment.

The objectives of the anchorage review are to: develop a practical process to identify anchorages; analyze and respond to environmental, economic and cultural concerns now and over the long term; draft a best practices at anchor manual; and recommend oversight management options for these anchorages.

As we move forward, I want to assure the Penelakut Nation that the views and comments of their nation will be included and considered in the development of a modern anchorages framework for all of Canada.

Our government is committed to the safety and environmental protection of marine communities, something the previous Harper government did not adequately address. Under our new oceans protection plan, we are developing a sustainable national anchorage framework that responds to environmental, economic and cultural concerns.

The national anchorages initiative is just now beginning its detailed work and will be seeking the input of first nations, other levels of government, as well as industry and coastal communities in the weeks and months ahead.

TransportAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments. He would know very well that section 136 of the Canada Shipping Act allows the minister of transport to regulate or prohibit the navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels. This is to promote the safe and efficient navigation of vessels and protect the public interest and the environment.

He is also one of the members who supported Bill C-262 and has acknowledged that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a part of international law that should be incorporated into Canadian law.

I want to end with this. I want to know when the government is going to respect first nations' rights. There are 19 nations that have their traditional and unceded territories in this area. They were not consulted. This is negatively impacting coastal communities. I want to know when the process is going to begin, when we can actually see these anchorages move and when we will have a holistic view of our transport system to control the inflow of all of this tanker traffic.

TransportAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that we do believe we have put a holistic process in place and that we are committed to reconciliation with first nations. This too is a process which we are undertaking step by step and in good faith. We do hope the convergence of these two processes will result in anchorage locations being selected in a way that respects the rights of first nations both under our Canadian Constitution and under UNDRIP, which he is correct to say I did in fact support.

Once again, I want to assure the Penelakut First Nation that our government is committed to that reconciliation process. I want to assure the hon. member that we will continue to move forward in that light.

Intergovernmental AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

December 6th, 2018 / 6:45 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, my presentation tonight emerges from a question that I asked of the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade on September 25, which in turn resulted from a motion I had made at the justice and human rights committee, of which I am proud to be the vice-chair.

The motion asked that the committee study something that I think most Canadians would agree is very much within the purview of justice and human rights and that is the status in Canada of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Members will know that over the summer the new Premier of Ontario decided that he would invoke, as he has said on a routine and repeated way, the notwithstanding clause, section 33, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That of course would allow for the suspension of the charter for five years in that province for the first time in the 36 years that we have had the charter in Canada. That overrules therefore freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and the right to life, liberty and security of the person, which of course was the foundation of a woman's right to choose upheld in the Morgentaler case.

This is a very grave situation. It was not about simply one province saying that it would do so in what most people thought was a rather strange context, on electoral reform in the City of Toronto.

The new Premier of Quebec has also indicated that he would not hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause. He would do so in the context of making sure that people wearing religious symbols would not be able to be in authority and make any decisions. It would therefore prevent public servants like teachers and judges from wearing religious garments like the Muslim hijab or the Jewish kippah when they interact with the public. It perhaps might also apply to large Christian crosses or turbans. We do not know. He would simply use the charter's notwithstanding clause to overrule the rights that Canadians have taken for granted in the 36 years we have had the charter.

My question was: Would the government please have a study at the justice and human rights committee so we could have at that? We could hear from the people who were there at the time, some of whom are still very much alive, like former prime minister Chrétien, Mr. Romanow, Mr. Davis, people who were there to tell us what their intent was. We could hear from experts and human rights-seeking groups that the notwithstanding clause was never intended to be used in the way that these two premiers have chosen to suggest they would use it.

What better place is there than the justice and human rights committee of the House of Commons to convene such a meeting in the interests of Canada? The government has said no. I would like to know why.

Intergovernmental AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his commitment to discussing the charter and Canadian fundamental freedoms. I have come to cherish, since being election 2015, my discussions with the hon. member on these various issues over time. Indeed, he is one of the people whose opinion I seek out when I am reflecting on these various matters. These discussions are at the core of our shared commitment to the democratic process.

Sadly, it is becoming increasingly clear that Conservative governments across the country have tended to trample on the rights of the most vulnerable. As my hon. friend knows, our government is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we will always stand up and protect those rights.

The inclusion of the notwithstanding clause was debated vigorously by the charter's authors. I remember that context very well. It was a compromise reached during discussions on the patriation of the Constitution, which enabled our predecessors to conclude the process of achieving Canada's sovereignty.

As we have seen, even former prime ministers and premiers have reservations about the use of the notwithstanding clause by any government. Certainly, academic writing has pointed it out. I think, in particular, of an article by Lorraine Weinrib that pointed out that it ought to be used only as a last resort and after the courts had struck down a piece of legislation. That is why we believe that any time a government invokes the notwithstanding clause to override the charter's protections, it has to be done deliberately, carefully and with the utmost forethought. Governments should not trample on the rights of their citizens on a whim. We will always be prepared as a government to stand up for the rights of all Canadians.

Although the Government of Ontario has committed to abandoning its plans to proceed with its then Bill 31, which included the notwithstanding clause, we were disappointed in its willingness to make use of such a powerful tool on a local matter. We were also dismayed by the Premier of Ontario's suggestion that he would use the notwithstanding clause routinely to achieve the province's legislative agenda.

Our government strongly supports Canadians' freedoms. We strong support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is there to protect Canadians from governments when they do overreach.

In celebrating International Day of Democracy, the Prime Minister remarked on how easy it had become in today's political climate to dismiss opportunities for debate and conversation. He called on all Canadians to strengthen our democracy every day.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss Canada's democratic tools and measures to enhance human rights in Canada.

Again, I would like to thank my colleague for his important question. However, I would remind him that committees work independently of government and are free to make their own choices for their topics of study.

Intergovernmental AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, I very much respect my colleague, the parliamentary secretary and appreciate his very kind words. I enjoy working him a great deal and appreciate his very wise words.

I am still disappointed that the party of the charter would not see this as something it could embrace. I have no doubt that the government would not invoke the notwithstanding clause. I do not think that is going to happen. However, we are looking for leadership from the government.

He talked about the Prime Minister's commitment to debate and conversation. What better place to do that than the justice and legal affairs committee. He said that the committees were independent. It certainly did not seem that way when I put the motion forward just after the premier designate in Quebec decided he would go this route and follow the route that apparently the Government of Ontario had contemplated, namely routine use of the notwithstanding clause to overrule people's rights.

I am surprised and disappointed that the Government of Canada does not see fit to show leadership in this important area.

Intergovernmental AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Speaker, as a member of Parliament from Quebec, I am obviously watching that situation with the Quebec government very carefully. I have a number of people in my riding who wear visible demonstrations of their faith and participate in Canadian society in a variety of ways, but always positively.

Therefore, as a member of Parliament, I am watching that quite carefully. I can assure the hon. member that our government is watching that situation quite carefully, as we are watching the situation in Ontario.

I would reiterate that we were disappointed with the Government of Ontario's decision initially to invoke the notwithstanding clause. We will continue to be defenders of the charter and continue these constitutional conversations with interlocutors across Canada.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, as I rise tonight in this late show on December 6, I am keenly aware that this is the last time I will rise to speak in an adjournment proceeding in this place, in this building. I leave tomorrow for the climate negotiations now in progress in Katowice, Poland. By the time those negotiations are completed, Parliament will be in recess. It is bittersweet to stand here, at this hour of night, knowing that this beautiful chamber will not be the one to which I return in the new year.

The question I raised and pursue tonight in adjournment proceedings was on September 25. I asked the Minister of Environment whether we were going to take the warnings of climate scientists seriously. I am quite firmly of the view that most Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to see their government take meaningful action, whether they are in New Brunswick and experienced a flood such as I have never seen before, or in British Columbia where I live, where we have now had several summers in which our usual rain does not come and our forests are on fire. Last summer we had 500 separate fires burning. We had so many volunteer firefighters leaving Vancouver Island very bravely, heading into the interior into the forest fire zone to fight fires, that some fire chiefs worried that if we had a fire on Vancouver Island, we might not have enough people left to fight it. Moreover, we had storm surges in Atlantic Canada, droughts and weather in the Prairies that drove farmers to levels of depression as they saw their crops covered in snow far too early before they had been able to get out and harvest them.

I am of the view, and the Canadians who speak to me consistently say, that we need to see real climate action. The level of despair is a real risk, because as people read the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they are informed that we only have a very short period of time in which to meet the Paris targets of ensuring that global average temperatures will increase no more than 1.5°C above the global average temperature before the industrial revolution. They are equally informed that Canada's plans and targets are among the weakest in the world, that if the world followed our path, we would not hold to 1.5°C or to 2°C, but would hit a 5.1°C increase in global average temperature. That is a path to the loss of human civilization.

Sir David Attenborough spoke at the opening of COP24 in Katowice and said exactly that. We are in a race against time to save human civilization because the ravages of catastrophic climate crises are not merely more bad weather, but amount to an existential threat.

As I stand here today, the Minister of Environment has said that we are not going to improve our targets for another two years. We do not have two years. The question I raised on September 25 was about we are going to have consistent policies. How can we possibly spend another $10 billion on the Kinder Morgan expansion to get raw bitumen out of Canada with the effect of boosting production of some of the most heavy greenhouse gas producing fossil fuel on the planet?

My question tonight, and I will raise it every chance I draw breath of life, is when are we going to set partisanship aside, do what our children and grandchildren demand of us and make a wholesale transition off fossil fuels and to the forms of energy that sustain us?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec

Liberal

David Lametti LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her wisdom and her commitment to environmental stewardship as we move forward. I have the good fortune this evening in these three adjournment debates to have answered questions from three colleagues whom I enjoy working with. It is a very lucky thing this evening. Of course we love and respect all our colleagues, but some a little more, so I appreciate all of their presence here this evening.

As for my hon. colleague's question about weighing climate impact, I can assure her that we are doing that every day. It is called the “Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change”, which we believe is a blueprint for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change, as well as creating good jobs across the country in a responsible way. It is a plan that puts a price on pollution and accelerates the phasing-out of things such as coal-fired electricity in favour of cleaner options such as renewable sources of energy. It is supported by our government's unprecedented investments in the clean-growth economy, something that often gets forgotten, which includes areas such as clean tech and green infrastructure. All of this together is how we are making sure that environmental protection goes hand in hand with a responsible approach to economic prosperity and developing Canada's abundant natural resources.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also knows that our government is making the single largest investment ever to protect our oceans, coastal communities and marine life through our $1.5-billion oceans protection plan. On the Trans Mountain project, we have developed a plan for ensuring it moves forward in the right way, and only in the right way, by expanding the environmental considerations and ensuring meaningful indigenous consultations. All of these actions, all of our efforts, represent the real and substantive ways that our government is delivering on its commitment to do things differently and to do different things.

As for the National Energy Board, I must point out that Bill C-69 includes creating a new Canadian energy regulator to integrate Canada's energy, economic and climate-change goals. We are proposing to give the new federal energy regulator the required independence and proper accountability to oversee a safe, strong and sustainable Canadian energy sector in the 21st century. That is why we are eager to see Bill C-69 passed as part of our new approach to resource development, an approach that is environmentally sound and reflects what we have heard from Canadians. Canadians have told us they want project reviews that provide greater certainty and more transparency, and we hope that we are achieving this; and also that expand the role of indigenous peoples in meaningful consultation processes.

Our government and the member opposite, we like to think, are on the same page. I know that she probably would like to push us harder and I am glad that she does do that. In that light, I share her thoughts about speaking in this House for perhaps the last time and I wish everyone the best of the season.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I do hold the hon. parliamentary secretary in very high regard and consider him a friend.

The problem here is that the pan-Canadian framework is not a climate plan. It is a patchwork of what provinces were agreeing to do, bound together and negotiated. I hate to out the reality of what happened under that pan-Canadian framework, but I think I ought to.

The deputy minister of Environment Canada through that period was the same person who was the architect of the Harper climate plan, who developed the 30% below 2005 by 2030 target. I believe that this sometimes happens; sometimes big trends of history come down to who was there, who held the pen and who chaired the meetings. Somehow, despite the fact that our Minister of Environment and Climate Change initially said that target was too weak and they would improve it, we still have the Harper target and we are not on track to meet it. We know the Harper target is far too weak to save our children.

Therefore, I will say again, it is not enough to be better than the Conservatives, the Liberals actually have to do what is right.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Liberal

David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC

Madam Speaker, I do think everyone in this House agrees, or I hope everyone in this House agrees, that we need to do more in order to meet and maintain the targets that were set under COP21. I wish the hon. member the very best in the negotiations that are upcoming in Poland, as well as the whole Canadian team. Like her, I can say for myself that I do hope that we succeed.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:03 p.m.)